If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Moonie news.... I'd rather watch FOX News, at least I can laugh at those fools...

Eat Us And Smile

Welcome back, Van HALEN!!!!

...It's the BAND and Dave is really the cat that can front VH. He sang his ASS off and was really cool. No cheese here guys, this is filet Mignon! - Steve Lukather's comment after witnessing a Van HALEN 2007 rehearsal

The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That's important so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to express your own works -- only the ability to express other people's. Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the work are important considerations. Are you reproducing an article from the New York Times because you needed to in order to criticise the quality of the New York Times, or because you couldn't find time to write your own story, or didn't want your readers to have to pay for the New York Times web site? The first is probably fair use, the others probably aren't.

Fair use is usually a short excerpt and almost always attributed. (One should not use more of the work than is necessary to make the commentary.) It should not harm the commercial value of the work -- in the sense of people no longer needing to buy it (which is another reason why reproduction of the entire work is a problem.)

Note that most inclusion of text in Usenet followups is for commentary and reply, and it doesn't damage the commercial value of the original posting (if it has any) and as such it is fair use. Fair use isn't an exact doctrine, either. The court decides if the right to comment overrides the copyright on an individual basis in each case. There have been cases that go beyond the bounds of what I say above, but in general they don't apply to the typical net misclaim of fair use.

I should have issued some comment as opposed to merely citing the article. So here goes...

According to sources from the Washington Times ("Clinton White House Axed Terror-fund Probe"), in the process of pursuing political correctness and millions of dollars in campaign donations, the Clinton Administration in 1995 turned a blind eye to domestic sources of funding for terrorist groups who are currently and/or have in the past been launching attacks on innocent civilians in Israel, India, the U.S., and elsewhere. When it comes to assigning blame for those responsible for the attacks of 9/11, the terrorists who committed the acts are, of course, worthy of the lion's share of the blame. But the Clinton administration is not blameless due to its impotence, both intentional and unintentional.

It's [Clinton's record on fighting terrorism] a record that some former Clinton aides find difficult to defend. "Clearly, not enough was done," former [Clinton administration] deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick told the Boston Globe. Former [Clinton administration] National Security Council aide Nancy Soderberg added, "It wasn't enough, and anyone involved in policy would have to admit that." And Tara Sonenshine, another former [Clinton administration] NSC aide, told Cox News Service, "Bill Clinton was a big believer in international coalitions to address international terrorism. The problem is often in the implementation. Once you get beyond saying the right words, concrete steps are necessary."

I will edit my original post to remove the content of the Washington Times story, and I will leave it up to readers to explore that link.

P.S. What is this site's position on posting stories from other sites? I see posts like mine all the time that use the entire article without comment (though that doesn't make it right, of course).

I think you misunderstood what I meant, UVH. We're just had a rash of posts lately from people simply copying and pasting articles from where ever they find them that are just intended to stir up 'discussion' if you want to call it that.

We've got some blame-game threads about 9/11 going already. I don't think we have a policy about copying and pasting articles, although you might take some heat if you don't give credit to the source.

Originally posted by MikeL:I think you misunderstood what I meant, UVH. We're just had a rash of posts lately from people simply copying and pasting articles from where ever they find them that are just intended to stir up 'discussion' if you want to call it that.

We've got some blame-game threads about 9/11 going already. I don't think we have a policy about copying and pasting articles, although you might take some heat if you don't give credit to the source.

Don't worry I'll keep the political threads at the DLRArmy...we'll keep the links "lite n sweet" from now on..... [img]graemlins/devil.gif[/img]

So who bought he NEW Zakk Wlyde's BLS(1919 Eternal), it kicks ass!!!!!

Our little dedication to CRPS awareness. If you don't know what this horrible disease is, please click this link to learn more. My (Brett) wife suffers from this extremely painful and debilitating nerve disorder that doctors are just now learning more about and realizing the severity. Please consider donating to help doctors find a cure for what many call the "suicide disease." Thank you!

Like Us On Facebook!

Newest Posts

For me, ADKOT was the first album to finally approach the incendiary intensity of the six pack. A big reason for this is The creative friction and competition between Ed and Dave. That push/pull...